Jump to content

Return of challenge caches


Recommended Posts

It is worth noting that one of the major complaints people have about challenge caches is that they were being used more and more as a way of excluding classes of finders from otherwise banal urban hides, rather than as a means of truly inspiring geocachers to do more.

 

Placing a cache at the top of a mountain is a much different thing than putting a cache on a guardrail and adding an extreme set of ALRs.

 

And if the challenge cache in question inspired you to find the cache at the top of the mountain?

 

The actions needed to find either one are limiting by their very nature and similar in that regard. They both exclude classes of finders. However, if you're willing to do what's needed to log each one as found, you won't be excluded any more.

 

I don't see exclusion as a huge issue unless exclusion is the actual purpose. And unfortunately, some cache owners really were placing challenges that were designed solely to exclude people. I think it's for the best that reviewers have some latitude here.

 

But you brought up exclusion as one of the major complaints about challenge caches. I'd like to see an example of a challenge cache that was designed solely to exclude people. Was it really that rampant, especially since challenge caches were less than 1% of all submitted caches on the site?

 

It was present enough that people were complaining about it during the feedback process, and it is something some challenge owners admitted to doing in the absence of other good ways to protect their caches from app users etc.

 

I think the new rule is simply meant to give reviewers the latitude to address this if it looks like it is happening.

 

It really looks like they have done their best to collate all of the feedback into a policy that is a fair compromise.

Link to comment

 

You're talking about the ALR, which is the difference between the "single cache listing" (that is, for physical caches, signing the logbook in order to log it found online), and the challenge cache which requires the additional task. On its own merit, you cannot log a challenge cache found, as you can with a physical cache, until its ALR is complete. That is the primary difference, and that really is the only factor separating the two contexts by which GS can defend their different judgement standards of "extremely difficult" and thus "almost like a private cache". That's all I'm sayin' yo.

 

 

Subjectivity is raised as a point of contention as it applies to the review process, % of appeals, and misunderstood logging requirements (confusing, not difficult) are also raised. Nowhere does it talk about the extreme difficulty the ALRs supposedly create and the almost like a private cache status that you say GS does. The only thing indirectly related is the issue of subjectivity and going from the issue of subjectivity and applying the broadness of it what that might mean to a specific example of ALRs and why they're treated differently is a stretch that can be made, but not proven with the information GS provides. They don't say anything about ALRs with regard to challenge caches other than that they've long exempted them. Nowhere do they say that ALRs are, or can be, used when differentiating between a challenge cache and any other "exclusionary" non-challenge cache. It's a big leap to say that ALRs are the difference between the two (that's obvious) and therefore are the reason for why they are like a private cache and won't be published. Without any factual evidence from GS stating so, it's pure conjecture on our part to make that leap. It's a leap that makes sense, but it's also not one that can be proven without a doubt because GS has not directly addressed the issue, except for this singular type of cache.

 

One of the biggest issues I see on the forums is the lack of consistency across a variety of areas and subjects. This is the issue that both CR and I have in this situation. I'm not against this guideline but I am pointing out that it raises issues for other caches that they might not have intended.

 

If only a few people can find and log a challenge cache, then it’s almost like a private cache.

 

If only a few people can find and log a challenge cache, then it’s almost like a private cache.

Link to comment

 

This aspect of the guidelines is not new for challenges. It is, as far as I know, something that has always applied since challenge caches were "a thing".

That being said, one person I know made the comment that technically, unless all the caches are T1/accessible, there is a degree of exclusion inherent in just about every challenge.

 

I know it's not new. That's not my point. My point is that if exclusion was truly a problem because it severely limited the number of cachers able to log a find, then any other cache that severely limits the number of cachers able to log a find should be under the same umbrella. I don't want those types of caches to disappear (even though it's unlikely I'll ever find some of those caches), but I think they're applying principles unequally, perhaps unknowingly. Cleaning up the language in the guidelines, like CR has stated here, will remove any issues of uncertainty.

Edited by coachstahly
Link to comment

Is it possible that the guidelines take an exception to extremely difficult challenge caches, but not extremely difficult other forms of caches, because of the inherent difficulty of hiding and maintaining other challenging caches (like with rock climbs or scuba caches or multis spread other 100s of km). There would naturally be a limit to the number of such caches that could exist or that a CO could place? Whereas a person could carpet bomb an area with extremely difficult challenges and still meet the maintenance guidelines.

Link to comment

I've been watching these forums about challenge caches closely since the moratorium but I am not sure if this has already been covered. After the new framework was announced, I applied at Project GC for a checker for a challenge I had been wanting to do for ages (and only recently qualified for myself). The process was pretty easy, the volunteers helped me straighten out a few details and then made the checker for me. The checker works well but it has one little issue. It seems that Project GC relies on map data to determine the state in which a cache is located, even though the COs have listed the state themselves. As a result, a cache that I am using to qualify for the challenge is listed as being in the wrong state (NSW) on Project GC but the right state (ACT) on geocaching.com. Expanding on this, I found a further 60 caches that fall into this criteria in my state. This seems to effect state-based challenges (as far as I have tested since yesterday :P ) as some of the caches have listed coordinates that are well out of the state but have GZs that are very much inside state boundaries.

 

My question is, what happens when the cache information on Project GC does not match that on geocaching.com? This isn't a criticism of Project GC (I'm really thankful for their help as I don't know much code beyond very basic python), I am just interested in the wider implications. As a result, I wouldn't be able to publish the cache straight away with the new guidelines (I have gotten in contact with my reviewer so this isn't about my cache, rather other similar scenarios).

 

Also, thanks for bringing challenges back! I'm happy to try and work with the new guidelines to produce some interesting and fun challenges! Sorry if this has already been brought up and discussed, with more than 20 pages of posts on both forums, I'm sure it can be forgiven if I have overlooked previous discussion...

Link to comment

- Yes they are different

- Yes there are different standards

- Yes, the new guidelines do not explain why they are being treated differently.

Yes, thank you for the better summarization than I attempted to whip up with many more words :laughing:.

 

Skipping over CR's comment for my own state of mind because coachstahy's touches on the same subject:

Subjectivity is raised as a point of contention as it applies to the review process, % of appeals, and misunderstood logging requirements (confusing, not difficult) are also raised. Nowhere does it talk about the extreme difficulty the ALRs supposedly create and the almost like a private cache status that you say GS does.

I know, I never said GS stated that is the reason. It's inferred from the facts: there is different judgement between the non-challenge cache, and the challenge cache. The only difference between the two is the challenge. So, the reason there's a difference in judgement must be due to the fact that, well, it's a challenge cache. Not sure how that's not being grasped :P

 

The only thing indirectly related is the issue of subjectivity and going from the issue of subjectivity and applying the broadness of it what that might mean to a specific example of ALRs and why they're treated differently is a stretch that can be made, but not proven with the information GS provides.

Yes, judging the difficulty of the ALR. Which single caches don't have.

 

They don't say anything about ALRs with regard to challenge caches other than that they've long exempted them. Nowhere do they say that ALRs are, or can be, used when differentiating between a challenge cache and any other "exclusionary" non-challenge cache.

The only difference between them is the ALR.

 

It's a big leap to say that ALRs are the difference between the two (that's obvious) and therefore are the reason for why they are like a private cache and won't be published.

Not sure I understand your wording with this. The guideline states that they judge the difficulty of the challenge so that caches effectively "almost like a private cache" aren't approved. -- A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers... If only a few people can find and log a challenge cache, then it's almost like a private cache.

I don't know about you, but that seems to clearly connect the "extremely difficult" "almost like a private cache" to the challenge, the ALR, which is the only difference between a non-challenge cache and a challenge cache.

 

One of the biggest issues I see on the forums is the lack of consistency across a variety of areas and subjects. This is the issue that both CR and I have in this situation. I'm not against this guideline but I am pointing out that it raises issues for other caches that they might not have intended.

I agree.

They judge "reasonable" different between a non-challenge cache and a challenge cache. My hope is that their judgement for the latter is itself reasonable.

 

Here's another example:

1. An extreme 5/5 cache with all the crazy attributes is judged reasonable and acceptable as is, and published.

2. An extreme 5/5 challenge cache required 100 of the previous 5/5 caches to be logged is judged... what? Is that reasonable or unreasonable? Perhaps I live in an area with say a powertrail of caches like that that many people have found - the local reviewer may be more likely to judge it reasonable than a reviewer out in some distant sparsely populated boring region with few caches and mainly inexperienced cachers, even if the CO qualifies.

(or what about a 10,000 find milestone challenge range 1.5 difficulty? In Nevada, perhaps. In the 'burbs of an average town? Unlikely)

 

#2 is bound to be judged by a different standard. The first is a self-contained, local, singular task to log a find. The latter is composed of a much broader task on top of the single cache find. The requirements, context, and standards are different. If the challenge's cache itself were the same as #1, it wouldn't be denied because of that, it would be denied because the challenge was deemed unreasonable.

 

Here's the point I think we can all agree upon:

 

  • What we are actually hoping and asking for is not really technical consistency between non-challenge cache listings and challenge cache listings, but reasonable judgment about what is and is not a reasonable challenge.

And that's where I'm going to leave my point in this line of discussion, because it really has no practical bearing on the subject.

 

They judge them differently. The only difference is the challenge, the ALR, thus they're judging them differently because it's a challenge cache. That's all I'm saying. I don't know what's being disagreed upon. Perhaps on the topic of what "consistency" actually relates to? I dunno, but I'm tired of this discussion strand now :laughing:

Link to comment

 

This aspect of the guidelines is not new for challenges. It is, as far as I know, something that has always applied since challenge caches were "a thing".

That being said, one person I know made the comment that technically, unless all the caches are T1/accessible, there is a degree of exclusion inherent in just about every challenge.

 

I know it's not new. That's not my point. My point is that if exclusion was truly a problem because it severely limited the number of cachers able to log a find, then any other cache that severely limits the number of cachers able to log a find should be under the same umbrella. I don't want those types of caches to disappear (even though it's unlikely I'll ever find some of those caches), but I think they're applying principles unequally, perhaps unknowingly. Cleaning up the language in the guidelines, like CR has stated here, will remove any issues of uncertainty.

 

Technically, they're applying principles unequally by allowing challenge caches, but not allowing caches with other sorts of ALRs.

Link to comment

Another good point, narcissa - It's also "inconsistent" to allow ALRs for physical caches requiring those to be qualified before logging the find.

The question is whether that "inconsistency" is a good or bad thing.

 

So...

Found It log allowed on a traditional cache that's signed. Found It log not allowed on a Challenge cache that's unqualified yet signed. "Inconsistent!"

Extremely difficult traditional cache judged reasonable and published. Extremely difficult Challenge cache judged unreasonable and denied. "Inconsistent!"

 

The former is accepted because the Challenge cache (ALR) is an exception to the rule about Found It logs.

The latter is intended to be accepted because a challenge cache incorporating an ALR is conceptually different than a non-challenge cache.

So the question is, with inconsistency being an objective truth in how certain judgements are made due to exceptions, is the judgement reasonable? We don't know yet. Still waiting to hear about challenges that have been denied and why. Soon, hopefully!

 

(I'm waiting on a submitted challenge idea to be reviewed right now too; gah, patience)

Link to comment

Is it possible that the guidelines take an exception to extremely difficult challenge caches, but not extremely difficult other forms of caches, because of the inherent difficulty of hiding and maintaining other challenging caches (like with rock climbs or scuba caches or multis spread other 100s of km). There would naturally be a limit to the number of such caches that could exist or that a CO could place? Whereas a person could carpet bomb an area with extremely difficult challenges and still meet the maintenance guidelines.

Mountain tops, in my experience, tend to be more than 528 feet apart. In contrast, a "challenge trail" can be viewed by newer geocachers as a means for keeping a nice park or trail effectively "off limits" to them for geocaching, due to a power trail of challenge caches (10,000 finds challenge, walk 529 feet, 11,000 finds challenge, walk 529 feet, 12,000 finds challenge, lather, rinse, repeat).

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Yes, it's obvious that a Challenge cache is different from a Non-Challenge cache. But Groundspeak's paragraph doesn't suggest that's the reason why they ban extremely difficult Challenge caches. The only reason Groundspeak mentions is that some extremely difficult Challenge caches would be found by very few people, which Groundspeak doesn't allow. Yet some extremely difficult Non-Challenge caches also would be found by very few people, but they aren't banned. Can you say "double standard?"

I agree Groundspeak doesn't explain this, and I can't speak for them.

 

But I will give my own view. Putting challenges aside for a moment, difficult caches have always been part of the game, and generally accepted. If there is a SCUBA or other cache I can't do, it doesn't bother me (or I believe most cachers). So Groundspeak has never had an issue with difficult/extreme caches.

 

When challenges started to increase, there was an increasing number of challenges with criteria which was difficult (and/or convoluted). And many cachers found these frustrating. Making it mandatory that at least the CO qualifies is one step to address this. But apparently not enough.

 

To me, it is as simple as that. A few might complain that they can't SCUBA or climb trees, but difficult "non-challenge" caches have not been seen as a problem in general. (Maybe with the exception of very difficult or convoluted puzzle caches, many complain about those). Challenge caches with criteria which few could ever meet have been seen as a problem.

While your hypothesis provides a logical justification for Groundspeak's double standard in applying their "reasonable number of cachers" guideline, I see several potential flaws.

 

First, the "reasonable number of cachers" challenge guideline has been in place for several years now, so it appears that the increasing frustration of some cachers that accompanies the increasing number of challenges has come in spite of this guideline's existence. But, hey, maybe the number of complaints today would be ten times worse if this guideline hadn't been enacted when it was. It's hard to say without visiting a parallel universe.

 

Second, the largest (or at least the most vocal on these forums) group of frustrated cachers complain about signing a challenge cache's physical log but not being able to log a smiley for that cache because they hadn't completed the challenge requirement(s). The "reasonable number of cachers" guideline does little to ease this group's frustrations (and senses of entitlement). At least for now, Groundspeak has declined to implement the "challenge stars" proposal, which would have addressed these complaints much more directly.

 

Third, you noted that another group of frustrated cachers complain about difficult/convoluted criteria. But those complaints should be addressed mostly by this guideline (which also has been in place for several years): "The challenge requirements should be simple, and easy to explain, follow and document." Of course, some challenges with difficult/convoluted criteria fall through the cracks in the review process because Volunteer Reviewers are human and sometimes make mistakes (or have a radically different idea of "simple" and "easy").

 

Fourth, another relatively small (as best I can judge) group of frustrated cachers complain about certain challenges that are so absurdly difficult that even the Challenge cache owners haven't completed the requirement(s). Again, these kinds of Challenge caches sometimes slip through the cracks in the review process. But, as you noted, the new "Challenge cache owners must show that they have met the challenge" guideline should address this particular complaint.

 

Fifth, if your "squeaky wheel gets the grease" hypothesis is true, then why do the often-complained-about "very difficult or convoluted puzzle caches" get a pass while Challenge caches do not?

 

Finally, if your "squeaky wheel get the grease" is the true reason behind Groundspeak's applying the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline to Challenge caches but not to Non-Challenge caches, then why did Groundspeak put a fake reason in their Help Center article?

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

I've been watching these forums about challenge caches closely since the moratorium but I am not sure if this has already been covered. After the new framework was announced, I applied at Project GC for a checker for a challenge I had been wanting to do for ages (and only recently qualified for myself). The process was pretty easy, the volunteers helped me straighten out a few details and then made the checker for me. The checker works well but it has one little issue. It seems that Project GC relies on map data to determine the state in which a cache is located, even though the COs have listed the state themselves. As a result, a cache that I am using to qualify for the challenge is listed as being in the wrong state (NSW) on Project GC but the right state (ACT) on geocaching.com. Expanding on this, I found a further 60 caches that fall into this criteria in my state. This seems to effect state-based challenges (as far as I have tested since yesterday :P ) as some of the caches have listed coordinates that are well out of the state but have GZs that are very much inside state boundaries.

 

My question is, what happens when the cache information on Project GC does not match that on geocaching.com? This isn't a criticism of Project GC (I'm really thankful for their help as I don't know much code beyond very basic python), I am just interested in the wider implications. As a result, I wouldn't be able to publish the cache straight away with the new guidelines (I have gotten in contact with my reviewer so this isn't about my cache, rather other similar scenarios).

I also wonder what will happen. And, if the problem does occur, who should it be reported to? At this time, I don't think they have said.

 

My opinion is that we will see wrinkles like this during the next year or so. GS and PGC are creating a formal relationship with each other. If GS relies on the the CO entering the state, and PGC looks it up based on polygons, there will be differences. Does PGC know the location of GZ, or do they only know the posted coordinates? Will the time zone difference of the servers have an impact? All of the differences between their respective databases have the potential to create the kind of confusion that your example illustrates.

 

I hope that this isn't doesn't become a large problem. If and when GS allows other web-based checker sites, these discrepancies may grow. Maybe it can be handled with good documentation of where and how these kinds of discrepancies can occur, or it might take a re-vamped API.

 

Following this further, I would also hope that there is a two way street when it comes time for maintenance on the web sites. Will maintenance on geocaching.com affect PGC? Will PGC maintenance affect GS? Will authentication work at PGC during GS maintenance? Will checkers work? Will it delay the update between the systems? Will a user be able to immediately update their log info? From the GS side, will the links to checkers work during a PGC maintenance period? I would hope that both sites will consider this, and include that information on their respective maintenance announcements.

Link to comment

I'm wondering if GS has other plans deep in the works already for other challenge checker partners. They've never implied that PGC would have that exclusive ability, but that's effectively the result given that they have the API access as a website and that's closed to any additional developers at the moment.

 

Will GS be opening API access again in the near future?

Is there another website currently working on implementing the API for checking challenges?

Is there an example of another challenge checker service other than PGC which is acceptable, currently, for new challenge listing submissions?

Do any other 3rd party websites have access to and make use of the API for other functions (like stats) who may be planning to implement web-based challenge checkers?

Link to comment

I've been watching these forums about challenge caches closely since the moratorium but I am not sure if this has already been covered. After the new framework was announced, I applied at Project GC for a checker for a challenge I had been wanting to do for ages (and only recently qualified for myself). The process was pretty easy, the volunteers helped me straighten out a few details and then made the checker for me. The checker works well but it has one little issue. It seems that Project GC relies on map data to determine the state in which a cache is located, even though the COs have listed the state themselves. As a result, a cache that I am using to qualify for the challenge is listed as being in the wrong state (NSW) on Project GC but the right state (ACT) on geocaching.com. Expanding on this, I found a further 60 caches that fall into this criteria in my state. This seems to effect state-based challenges (as far as I have tested since yesterday :P ) as some of the caches have listed coordinates that are well out of the state but have GZs that are very much inside state boundaries.

 

My question is, what happens when the cache information on Project GC does not match that on geocaching.com?

According to this Help Center article:

 

It is the cache owner’s responsibility to make sure the challenge checker functions properly.

 

* The challenge checker must verify that a player does or does not qualify to log a challenge cache as found.

 

* A challenge cache may be disabled or archived if the associated challenge checker does not work properly.

So, a strict interpretation of this probably would prevent you from having your Challenge cache published, since the challenge checker for it doesn't function properly. At least that's true if your challenge requirement is that the finds must be caches whose listings specify their locations in Australian Capital Territory (ACT). I suppose you could get around this problem if you changed your requirement to read something like, "The 50 finds must be located in the area that the Project-GC challenge checker designates as ACT." But that's rather inelegant and loads some frustrating uncertainty upon geocachers who are attempting to complete your challenge.

 

You could email your reviewer and ask if they would take a lenient view about the "functions properly" guideline. Finders who fail the checker could provide you with a list of caches that they believe are actually in ACT, and you could manually verify this and override the checker. But don't get your hopes up too high. There were posts in another thread where people who were involved in creating the new Challenge cache framework seemed to lean in favor of a rather strict interpretation of this guideline.

 

For example: "It's up to the CO to ensure that the checker is infallible. If it's not, then the cache is subject to archival. The CO certainly has a vested interest, then, in infallibility of the checker."

 

And another example: "All new challenges will require an online challenge checker -- it's a nice, simple bright line test..."

 

The best solution might be to contact the person who coded your challenge checker and ask them to use the "state" data from Groundspeak's API rather than computing the state themselves. I'd think that should be feasible for them to do (but I'm not sure).

 

Another solution might be to have your checker coder (and/or checker tagger) add a list of 60 cache exceptions to the checker. You and the coder/tagger would have to be willing to update that list as new cache exceptions arise. However, I'm uncertain whether Groundspeak would deem this updateable checker to be "functioning properly," since it might generate false negatives for short periods of time. Discuss this idea with your reviewer before proceeding.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

They judge "reasonable" different between a non-challenge cache and a challenge cache. My hope is that their judgement for the latter is itself reasonable.

Reviewers don't apply any sort of "cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" guideline to Non-Challenge caches. They only apply that guideline to Challenge caches. So, yeah, technically I guess they judge "reasonable" differently. In one case, they judge it; in the other, they don't.

 

1. An extreme 5/5 cache with all the crazy attributes is judged reasonable and acceptable as is, and published.

Again, reviewers make no determination of whether a Non-Challenge cache "needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers."

 

Here's the point I think we can all agree upon:

 

  • What we are actually hoping and asking for is not really technical consistency between non-challenge cache listings and challenge cache listings, but reasonable judgment about what is and is not a reasonable challenge.

Speaking for myself, what I actually am hoping for and asking for is that Groundspeak reduce the burden it imposes upon its Volunteer Reviewers and Appeals group by reducing the amount of subjectivity in their Challenge cache guidelines. Specifically, by eliminating the subjective "A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" guideline. (But I'm not holding my breath.)

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

If boundary polygons are not accurate, they should be improved, project-gc tries to use the best available anyway. If a cache lies exactly on a border, well then count it for the country the owner stated.

 

But if caches (or more specifically header coordinates) definitely are not in a certain country/state, why allow owners to claim that? Wrong country/state is chosen both intended und unintended by some owners.

 

Intended for example if you would need a visum for the county and that is too complicated/expensive to get for the average cacher or entry is restricted so the cache is located on the easier to get to side of the border.

 

For areas claimed by more than one country, well maybe keep lists of caches that count for both countries.

Link to comment

I think the "needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" is necessary, and fluid, with the standard shifting as the years go on. The sorts of challenges we have today were nigh impossible many years ago. Now they're run of the mill. 5-10 years down the line, the ridiculous challenges today will be more easily qualified. The longer one caches, the more challenges will be qualified. "Reasonable" has to be subjective and change as time progresses, and there does need to be a limit. As mentioned elsewhere, newcomers to the hobby shouldn't be intimidated by challenges that may take years to accomplish; that's not the feel Groundspeak wants to promote in geocaching, even if we feel that's really what gives a challenge its value in completing.

 

So I don't agree that the guideline should be removed. But I do feel that the standard of "reasonable" should definitely itself be reasonable.

 

ETA: That is to say, there should be a reasonable number of challenges that appeal to 'new' geocachers, and a reasonable number of challenges to appeal to 'veterans' - providing some semblance of an actual challenge to both ends of the spectrum.

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

I find this interesting...

 

Note: At this time, challenge caches published prior to April 21, 2015 are grandfathered into the game. As with any grandfathered cache, Geocaching HQ may archive caches which become problematic.

 

:ph34r:

 

Oh yes... it will become problematic... it always comes with controlling people...errrr... cache owners. :ph34r:

What does "problematic" mean?

The grandfathered caches won't be "problematic" to review, since they've already been published.

 

Will they be deemed "problematic" if cache finders can't figure out how to determine whether they've qualified for a CC or not? If the CO can't explain the qualification requirements clearly enough, then that's either a CO's communication problem or a cache finder's comprehension problem.

 

If the cache finder understands the qualification requirements but doesn't want to do the work necessary to determine whether they qualify or not, assuming a checker isn't available, then I wouldn't consider the grandfathered CC to be "problematic" or the CO to be "controlling". In such cases, the cache finder is the one being "problematic" by insisting they should be allowed to log a CC for which they can't prove their qualifications.

In other words, a CO is a jerk about something and cause problems for others. That will make GS do something about it. When I use the word controlling cache owners, its at Cache Owners that really go over the line. They are out there. I can name two of them on the top of my head. Nothing to do with deleting logs on fake finds, thats a normal standard thing and I am fine with it. Most cache owners arent controlling and pretty easy to work with but there are few rotten apples out there thats making it harder for GS/reviewers/finders to deal with.

Link to comment

I think the "needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" is necessary, and fluid, with the standard shifting as the years go on. The sorts of challenges we have today were nigh impossible many years ago. Now they're run of the mill. 5-10 years down the line, the ridiculous challenges today will be more easily qualified. The longer one caches, the more challenges will be qualified. "Reasonable" has to be subjective and change as time progresses, and there does need to be a limit. As mentioned elsewhere, newcomers to the hobby shouldn't be intimidated by challenges that may take years to accomplish; that's not the feel Groundspeak wants to promote in geocaching, even if we feel that's really what gives a challenge its value in completing.

 

So I don't agree that the guideline should be removed. But I do feel that the standard of "reasonable" should definitely itself be reasonable.

 

ETA: That is to say, there should be a reasonable number of challenges that appeal to 'new' geocachers, and a reasonable number of challenges to appeal to 'veterans' - providing some semblance of an actual challenge to both ends of the spectrum.

 

Well said.

Link to comment

As mentioned elsewhere, newcomers to the hobby shouldn't be intimidated by challenges that may take years to accomplish; that's not the feel Groundspeak wants to promote in geocaching, even if we feel that's really what gives a challenge its value in completing.

Most newcomers quickly learn that they don't have to find every cache that's out there. If they ever were intimidated in the first place, then they usually soon stop shaking in their shoes whenever they see a difficult cache -- regardless of whether that cache is a Challenge cache or a Non-Challenge cache.

 

For many of us, challenging Challenge caches can inspire us to set fun and interesting goals. It took me years to complete the Fizzy and Jasmer challenges, but those are two of the more memorable challenges I've completed. It took me even longer to complete an "Unknowns-types only Fizzy" challenge and a "Traditional-types only Fizzy" challenge; it was even more satisfying when I finally accomplished those.

 

So I don't agree that the guideline should be removed. But I do feel that the standard of "reasonable" should definitely itself be reasonable.

 

ETA: That is to say, there should be a reasonable number of challenges that appeal to 'new' geocachers, and a reasonable number of challenges to appeal to 'veterans' - providing some semblance of an actual challenge to both ends of the spectrum.

Most owners who create easy challenges probably do so because they enjoy seeing lots of geocachers successfully complete those challenges and log their finds. So if the "needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" guideline suddenly disappeared tomorrow, then I seriously doubt we'd see a dramatic decline in the number of new easy challenges being created.

Link to comment

As mentioned elsewhere, newcomers to the hobby shouldn't be intimidated by challenges that may take years to accomplish; that's not the feel Groundspeak wants to promote in geocaching, even if we feel that's really what gives a challenge its value in completing.

There have always been challenge caches that I'll never complete, and I've never felt any more discouraged by them then by hard puzzles, caches requiring kayaking, chirp caches, or any of a number of other caches I'll never find.

 

On the other hand, one of my most precious moments geocaching was when I saw a challenge caches that I'd never complete, then rediscovered it a couple years later and realized I only had to target a couple more caches to meet the requirement.

 

So I'm wondering what method GS used to determine that newcomers would be intimidated by impossible challenges since my reaction as a newcomer was entirely different. Not that there's any point to discussing it, since the idea is clearly embedded in the mythology and nothing's going to get rid of it.

Link to comment

How quickly I went from elation that Challenge caches had returned to utter despair when I read what was now prohibited. My favorite type, title words, are gone. We've completed 67 Challenges and are working on dozens more. It only became difficult to work on when Groundspeak changed their search format from a word search to "cache starts with" but once they instituted their new filter search, it became very easy to see qualifying caches we've found and caches we need to find to fulfill a Challenge. Why do people find that so difficult to do? Thanks to CanadianRockies for pointing out the inconsistency of Groundspeak in judging Challenges more difficult to accomplish then a T4-5 or crazy Multi's, etc. As I wrote when the moratorium first started, there are many caches we'll never be able to do such as high terrain or difficult puzzles but I don't mind their existence for other people. We don't like searching on busy streets, where homeless hang out or behind some businesses but I don't ask for them to be forbidden just because they make us uncomfortable. I think the "casual" cacher would have more problems with those then with an interesting Challenge. My favorite type of cache before Challenges started (after the early days of caching when a big box would contain very interesting items) were Virtuals that took us to hidden places only locals knew about. Those have been lost and now fun Challenges are gone. I really think the only type now allowed are more difficult, boring and already exist so I don't see many interesting new ones popping up in the future. I had just put our first Challenge cache out before the moratorium started and had ideas for more but now they're not allowed. As for cheaters and whiners, there will always be some in any human activity but it's their loss if that's how they want to go through life. Don't let them ruin the entire activity. If some community has CO's putting out "exclusive" caches, than that community has to point them out to the reviewers and their caches shouldn't get approved but why do all of us have to suffer because of those few bad actors. Oh well, I really needed help extracting myself from this previously addictive pursuit so I guess the new rules will accomplish that once we finish the grandfathered Challenges.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment

Speaking for myself, what I actually am hoping for and asking for is that Groundspeak reduce the burden it imposes upon its Volunteer Reviewers and Appeals group by reducing the amount of subjectivity in their Challenge cache guidelines. Specifically, by eliminating the subjective "A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" guideline. (But I'm not holding my breath.)

I assume there's some Terrible Example that compels GS to want to control challenge caches, but the alternative obviously isn't open to discussion. I have a hard time imagining that so many impossible challenge caches have been planted independently that they'd be a serious problem, so I have to believe there was one deranged CO somewhere that caused a huge stink, and That Must Never Be Allowed To Happen Again. I wish we knew the story.

 

I suppose it's my rose colored glasses, but impossible challenge caches seem so pointless, I have to believe reviewers would have less trouble with them if they asked "Why would you want to do hide a cache no one will ever be able to find?" instead of telling people they can't do that. I'd love to talk with a CO that tried to have an impossible challenge so I could see what he wanted to accomplish.

 

Oh, the justification says it's almost like a private cache, but there's nothing private about it since anyone can find it whether the CO knows them or not. The term they should use is "exclusive".

Link to comment

We need an answer quickly as to whether grandfathered challenge caches can no longer require the ALR. Someone just claimed a find for a cache they signed but have no intention of listing their qualifiers. That stinks but as I said, cheaters abound in life. I would just like to know what Groundspeak planned for such a situation. I can't believe they meant for grandfathered challenges to become traditionals.

Link to comment
We need an answer quickly as to whether grandfathered challenge caches can no longer require the ALR. Someone just claimed a find for a cache they signed but have no intention of listing their qualifiers. That stinks but as I said, cheaters abound in life. I would just like to know what Groundspeak planned for such a situation. I can't believe they meant for grandfathered challenges to become traditionals.
That isn't what "grandfathered" means.

 

From the Help Center article Challenge Caches: "Note: At this time, challenge caches published prior to April 21, 2015 are grandfathered into the game."

 

The requirements of the grandfathered caches (virtual, webcam, challenge, whatever) remain intact. To log them online, you need to complete them according to their original requirements. That's what "grandfathered" means.

 

For an example of a requirement that is not grandfathered, see the Help Center article EarthCache Logging Requirements: "Requiring a photograph of the geocacher as proof that they were at the EarthCache site is not permitted, and this has not been grandfathered for older EarthCache listings."

 

Another example would be Additional Logging Requirements (ALRs), which were not grandfathered. All ALRs are considered optional, even if they were allowed to be mandatory when the ALR cache was originally listed.

Link to comment

How quickly I went from elation that Challenge caches had returned to utter despair when I read what was now prohibited. My favorite type, title words, are gone. We've completed 67 Challenges and are working on dozens more. It only became difficult to work on when Groundspeak changed their search format from a word search to "cache starts with" but once they instituted their new filter search, it became very easy to see qualifying caches we've found and caches we need to find to fulfill a Challenge. Why do people find that so difficult to do? Thanks to CanadianRockies for pointing out the inconsistency of Groundspeak in judging Challenges more difficult to accomplish then a T4-5 or crazy Multi's, etc. As I wrote when the moratorium first started, there are many caches we'll never be able to do such as high terrain or difficult puzzles but I don't mind their existence for other people. We don't like searching on busy streets, where homeless hang out or behind some businesses but I don't ask for them to be forbidden just because they make us uncomfortable. I think the "casual" cacher would have more problems with those then with an interesting Challenge. My favorite type of cache before Challenges started (after the early days of caching when a big box would contain very interesting items) were Virtuals that took us to hidden places only locals knew about. Those have been lost and now fun Challenges are gone. I really think the only type now allowed are more difficult, boring and already exist so I don't see many interesting new ones popping up in the future. I had just put our first Challenge cache out before the moratorium started and had ideas for more but now they're not allowed. As for cheaters and whiners, there will always be some in any human activity but it's their loss if that's how they want to go through life. Don't let them ruin the entire activity. If some community has CO's putting out "exclusive" caches, than that community has to point them out to the reviewers and their caches shouldn't get approved but why do all of us have to suffer because of those few bad actors. Oh well, I really needed help extracting myself from this previously addictive pursuit so I guess the new rules will accomplish that once we finish the grandfathered Challenges.

 

+1 What he said! I like your challenge cache! I have 157 finds that count! But I won't be able to hide one like that. :(

I have 16 challenge finds (out of 25 finds with Challenge in the title.) Most I did not work at. Looked through my finds to find one I found that was hidden the day I signed up for geocaching. (Not sure if that's still permitted.) Not really interested in finding caches in 200 contiguous counties. (Is that still permitted?) Or two hundred points for adding the terrain and difficulty ratings for caches found on one day. (Though I did 50 and 100.)

But, yeah. I liked the 'Cache names containing', or 'cache hiders name starting with' (Hope to get 5 this weekend to complete that one.) Really sad that the programmers from that other site were unable to come up with a checker that works! Really sad!

So, I agree. Won't be a lot of interesting new challenges listed. Oh, well.

Link to comment

I suppose it's my rose colored glasses, but impossible challenge caches seem so pointless, I have to believe reviewers would have less trouble with them if they asked "Why would you want to do hide a cache no one will ever be able to find?" instead of telling people they can't do that. I'd love to talk with a CO that tried to have an impossible challenge so I could see what he wanted to accomplish.

Many people hold long-unfound (say, 5+ years) Traditional caches in great respect/awe. Most of these caches probably required a huge effort for the cache owners to hide, and nobody has yet duplicated that effort in search of them.

 

But I rarely see long-unfound Puzzle caches garnering that same cachet, since it's very easy to create an impossible-to-solve puzzle. If the "reasonable number of cachers" and the "cache owner must have completed it" guidelines were dropped, then I imagine impossible Challenge caches would occupy the same boat as impossible Puzzle caches. It would be so easy to create them, that their long-unfound status would be almost meaningless.

Link to comment

That's what I assumed but I think Groundspeak better state that clearly so more of these bogus "logs" don't occur.

From the Help Center:

 

In geocaching terms, the word "grandfathered" means to grant a special exception. More clearly, to "grandfather" something is to allow certain situations to exist based on an older rule (this is the "grandfather clause") even though a new rule is currently in place.

 

That seems like a pretty clear definition to me, but here's a link if you need further details/examples:

 

http://support.Groundspeak.com/index.php?pg=kb.page&id=63

 

I think the more difficult part of the problem is to get people to read/understand what Grandfathering means.

Link to comment

There have always been challenge caches that I'll never complete, and I've never felt any more discouraged by them then by hard puzzles, caches requiring kayaking, chirp caches, or any of a number of other caches I'll never find.

 

On the other hand, one of my most precious moments geocaching was when I saw a challenge caches that I'd never complete, then rediscovered it a couple years later and realized I only had to target a couple more caches to meet the requirement.

Oh I completely agree.

 

So I'm wondering what method GS used to determine that newcomers would be intimidated by impossible challenges since my reaction as a newcomer was entirely different. Not that there's any point to discussing it, since the idea is clearly embedded in the mythology and nothing's going to get rid of it.

I'm guessing, the surveys and endless threads discussing challenge caches :P

Edited by thebruce0
Link to comment

Is requiring a cacher to "opt in" to complete a challenge cache allowed? As in...you must post a note stating intent to do a cache to be able to do the challenge?

Here is a comment from "Chris" over at The Geocaching Blog:

 

Requiring a cacher to contact the CO or "state intention" before starting the challenge is not permitted under current guidelines. (And hasn't been for quite some time.) This is addressed by "Geocaches found before challenge was published can count towards the achievement of the challenge" and "Restrictions on date of finds used for the challenge are not permitted."

 

Challenges that do require CO contact or statement of intention before starting were likely published before the applicable guidelines were put in place.

Link to comment

Is requiring a cacher to "opt in" to complete a challenge cache allowed? As in...you must post a note stating intent to do a cache to be able to do the challenge?

 

There's a thread on this topic:

 

Is this an ALR on a challenge cache?

 

No official response there and user opinions vary.

 

Surely as past finds must be accepted for challenges the "opt in" is meaningless. If a cache has an "opt in" policy where you need to announce your intention to accept the challenge, but I already have past finds which will qualify me and must be accepted by the CCO, then I would simply post an "opt in" note, immediately followed by a "Found it", rendering the "opt in" pointless.

Link to comment

So I'm wondering what method GS used to determine that newcomers would be intimidated by impossible challenges since my reaction as a newcomer was entirely different. Not that there's any point to discussing it, since the idea is clearly embedded in the mythology and nothing's going to get rid of it.

I'm guessing, the surveys and endless threads discussing challenge caches :P

I don't recall any newbie contributions to the discussions, just the same old people that always campaign to get challenge caches outlawed.

 

I don't recall anything in the survey that addressed newbie disappointment or intimidation, but there were plenty of questions that encouraged "I don't like challenge caches because..." type responses, so I suppose they might have interpreted the predictable responses as showing someone was intimidated. Anyway, I wasn't really interested in guessing: I really wanted to know the actual answer.

Link to comment

My second question to those experienced cachers would be, "If you didn't like the streak, then why didn't you quit earlier?" If it feels like a chore, then don't do it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to find a cache every day. You shouldn't need Groundspeak to protect you against yourself. My longest caching streak is 113 days; I quit when it became too much of a chore to be worthwhile continuing.

 

I quit my streak because it became too much work after a month.

 

Why do people keep streaks going despite doing so becoming a tedious chore? I will look to game design for an answer. (Geocaching isn't a true game because it never ends and there is no winner, but it has many trappings of a game.) A very experienced game designer found that if you provide an effective way to win that isn't fun then most players will play the game in that unfun way then resent the game for it.

 

The existence of an attainable but unfun challenge (especially since streak challenges require negligible bookkeeping) will result in geocachers completing then challenge, but liking geocaching less as a result - which is bad for geocaching.

 

The counter-argument that cachers should only seek the kind of caches they enjoy and ignore the caches (and challenges) they dislike is contrary to the "gotta get em all" mentality that many people have, and the expectation of fun. Games can't fight human nature.

 

Theoretically speaking.

Link to comment

So, all of this TL;DR action (I did read, but anyway...) makes me think that creating a new cache type would be the best way to deal with much of the concern. I think the new clarifications, limitations, and guidelines are going to help in the long run.

 

But I just want to be able to easily keep them out of my PQs and other searches, while also being able to search for them easily when I do want to attempt one. I can forgive the "gotta do this before you can log a physical cache that you should be able to log anyway because that's the foundation of this whole game anyway" ALR aspect of CCs if they just made it something that I could make "go away" via existing searches and filters. :anicute:

Link to comment

So I'm wondering what method GS used to determine that newcomers would be intimidated by impossible challenges since my reaction as a newcomer was entirely different. Not that there's any point to discussing it, since the idea is clearly embedded in the mythology and nothing's going to get rid of it.

I'm guessing, the surveys and endless threads discussing challenge caches :P

I don't recall any newbie contributions to the discussions, just the same old people that always campaign to get challenge caches outlawed.

 

I don't recall anything in the survey that addressed newbie disappointment or intimidation, but there were plenty of questions that encouraged "I don't like challenge caches because..." type responses, so I suppose they might have interpreted the predictable responses as showing someone was intimidated. Anyway, I wasn't really interested in guessing: I really wanted to know the actual answer.

Maybe "thebruce0" was intimidated by difficult caches when he was a newbie, but I can't think of any other geocacher with whom I've spoken who ever expressed that kind of reaction. When geocachers first learn that some people have found 100,000+ caches, half of them seem awe-struck while the other half roll their eyes. If a challenge to find 100,000 caches was placed here, then I think everyone would ignore it; nobody would be intimidated by it.

 

The mythology of the intimidated novice geocacher probably persists because some people often find it easier to simply swallow what's fed to them rather than independently evaluate the content.

 

I don't think even Groundspeak really believes newcomers are intimidated by extremely difficult caches. They allowed the cache on the International Space Station because of the positive public relations it might generate -- not because they wanted to scare people away from geocaching.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

My second question to those experienced cachers would be, "If you didn't like the streak, then why didn't you quit earlier?" If it feels like a chore, then don't do it. Nobody is holding a gun to your head and forcing you to find a cache every day. You shouldn't need Groundspeak to protect you against yourself. My longest caching streak is 113 days; I quit when it became too much of a chore to be worthwhile continuing.

 

I quit my streak because it became too much work after a month.

 

Why do people keep streaks going despite doing so becoming a tedious chore? I will look to game design for an answer. (Geocaching isn't a true game because it never ends and there is no winner, but it has many trappings of a game.) A very experienced game designer found that if you provide an effective way to win that isn't fun then most players will play the game in that unfun way then resent the game for it.

 

The existence of an attainable but unfun challenge (especially since streak challenges require negligible bookkeeping) will result in geocachers completing then challenge, but liking geocaching less as a result - which is bad for geocaching.

 

The counter-argument that cachers should only seek the kind of caches they enjoy and ignore the caches (and challenges) they dislike is contrary to the "gotta get em all" mentality that many people have, and the expectation of fun. Games can't fight human nature.

 

Theoretically speaking.

The "gotta get em all" mentality is a big part of the problem. It should be easy to ignore a cache but because many people they think they deserve to find every one, they complain about those that are too difficult and beyond their reach. Doesn't matter what kind of cache it is, they want it gone if it takes too much effort to get. Because challenge and puzzle caches usually require more steps for completion, they are the main scapegoats.

Link to comment

Speaking for myself, what I actually am hoping for and asking for is that Groundspeak reduce the burden it imposes upon its Volunteer Reviewers and Appeals group by reducing the amount of subjectivity in their Challenge cache guidelines. Specifically, by eliminating the subjective "A challenge cache needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" guideline. (But I'm not holding my breath.)

I assume there's some Terrible Example that compels GS to want to control challenge caches, but the alternative obviously isn't open to discussion. I have a hard time imagining that so many impossible challenge caches have been planted independently that they'd be a serious problem, so I have to believe there was one deranged CO somewhere that caused a huge stink, and That Must Never Be Allowed To Happen Again. I wish we knew the story.

Here's a comment from the bottom of the Challenge cache guidelines:

 

At times a geocache may meet the requirements for publication on the site but the reviewers, as experienced geocachers, may see additional concerns not listed in these guidelines that you as a geocache placer may not have noticed. The reviewer may bring these additional concerns to your attention and offer suggestions so that the geocache can be published.

If the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline was dropped, then there's still the "Challenge cache owners must show that they have met the challenge" guideline to help prevent truly impossible Challenge caches. But suppose some big-number cacher went nuts and started submitting dozens of challenges to "find 100,000 caches," "find 10,000 Unknown caches," "find 500 Large caches," etc.

 

In that case, I would hope the reviewer, as an experienced geocacher, would step in and express their concerns that the high number of these kinds of challenges probably is having a negative effect on the geocaching community (and publication will cease if changes aren't made). But I suspect few reviewers want to be put in that kind of position. It's much easier to say, "Sorry, fella, but my hands are tied. These kinds of challenges violate the guidelines and can't be published."

 

Unfortunately, the subjective nature of the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline means those same reviewers end up in lots of tedious back-and-forth email exchanges that often culminate in appeals to Groundspeak. And if that problem continues, then it could result in the complete elimination of new Challenge caches.

 

So, rather than dumping the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline and putting the breaks on a few "bad apples" when necessary, Volunteer Reviewers have to shoulder this extra burden while the fate of future challenges hangs in the balance. Alas.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Mountain tops, in my experience, tend to be more than 528 feet apart. In contrast, a "challenge trail" can be viewed by newer geocachers as a means for keeping a nice park or trail effectively "off limits" to them for geocaching, due to a power trail of challenge caches (10,000 finds challenge, walk 529 feet, 11,000 finds challenge, walk 529 feet, 12,000 finds challenge, lather, rinse, repeat).

A difficult "challenge trail" in a nice park or along a popular trail might be just the kind of situation that calls for a judicious use of reviewer discretion:

 

At times a geocache may meet the requirements for publication on the site but the reviewers, as experienced geocachers, may see additional concerns not listed in these guidelines that you as a geocache placer may not have noticed. The reviewer may bring these additional concerns to your attention and offer suggestions so that the geocache can be published.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

If the "reasonable number of cachers" guideline was dropped, then there's still the "Challenge cache owners must show that they have met the challenge" guideline to help prevent truly impossible Challenge caches. But suppose some big-number cacher went nuts and started submitting dozens of challenges to "find 100,000 caches," "find 10,000 Unknown caches," "find 500 Large caches," etc.

I don't have to suppose: I live in Alamogul's neck of the woods, so the sky's the limit on challenge caches that he puts out. No big deal, particularly because he doesn't put out dozens. Dozens of anything bad or pointless are a problem, but that's yet another thing we don't worry about preventing on non-challenge caches.

 

In that case, I would hope the reviewer, as an experienced geocacher, would step in and express their concerns that the high number of these kinds of challenges probably is having a negative effect on the geocaching community (and publication will cease if changes aren't made). But I suspect few reviewers want to be put in that kind of position. It's much easier to say, "Sorry, fella, but my hands are tied. These kinds of challenges violate the guidelines and can't be published."

I suspect you're right that they imagine it to be easier to cite a rule, but you'd think they'd have noticed by now that it isn't really easier at all. Hand out free advice and it's taken or it isn't, the challenge is good or bad, end of story. Bad ones will be boring, no one will visit them, CO will eventually realize it's silly to have a cache that no one visits. Just like with any other bad cache. Block it by fiat, on the other hand, and you'll get fights, appeals, time wasted, the very problems the rule was suppose to solve.

 

Of course, with enough rules you can squash those possibilities, and I'm guessing the new guidelines may have reached that point.

Link to comment

Mountain tops, in my experience, tend to be more than 528 feet apart. In contrast, a "challenge trail" can be viewed by newer geocachers as a means for keeping a nice park or trail effectively "off limits" to them for geocaching, due to a power trail of challenge caches (10,000 finds challenge, walk 529 feet, 11,000 finds challenge, walk 529 feet, 12,000 finds challenge, lather, rinse, repeat).

Can we hear more about this story? Does this kind of thing happen often? Do we know why someone would want to keep a trail off limits to any caching? Honestly, it seems like the attitude here is what we should be worried about, not the fact that they can use challenge caches to accomplish their piggy goals.

 

And, worst case, was it a problem? Would there have been any caches on that trail if it hadn't been carpet bombed with high end challenge caches? Did anyone try to encourage them to plant the occasional traditional on the trail so people that don't care for challenges could still geocache along that trail?

Link to comment

Mountain tops, in my experience, tend to be more than 528 feet apart. In contrast, a "challenge trail" can be viewed by newer geocachers as a means for keeping a nice park or trail effectively "off limits" to them for geocaching, due to a power trail of challenge caches (10,000 finds challenge, walk 529 feet, 11,000 finds challenge, walk 529 feet, 12,000 finds challenge, lather, rinse, repeat).

Can we hear more about this story? Does this kind of thing happen often? Do we know why someone would want to keep a trail off limits to any caching? Honestly, it seems like the attitude here is what we should be worried about, not the fact that they can use challenge caches to accomplish their piggy goals.

Even if Groundspeak decided to eliminate new Challenge caches completely, a geocacher with a bad attitude still could keep a nice area "off limits" by carpet-bombing it with impossibly difficult Puzzle caches or an extremely difficult, many-stage (with one or more stages being overseas) Multi-cache. Even worse, that area might look completely empty of geocaches.

Link to comment

Can we hear more about this story? Does this kind of thing happen often?

 

"Often" is kind of a relative term, but here is one local example:

 

78854b73-eeae-495f-b12d-5aaa9bc723e5.jpg

It looks like some of the northern Challenge caches are in a park, but there's also plenty of empty park space for Non-Challenge caches. And most of the "challenge trail" appears to be along residential roads, where few Non-Challenge caches normally would appear. How difficult are these challenges?

 

There are a bunch of generally easy Challenge caches placed on street signs in a residential area of St. Paul, Minnesota. But I don't have a serious problem with that, since it's not likely that they are depriving anybody of a great location to put a wonderful Non-Challenge. If I'm wrong, then I hope that Challenge cache owner would be willing to move one or more of those challenges.

 

I've placed a couple dozen mostly challenging Challenge caches along a couple rural roads just outside of Calgary, Alberta. The roads aren't particularly scenic, and I don't think anybody else had ever placed a cache there. But if one of my caches is blocking someone, then I'd almost certainly be willing to move some of my caches to accommodate their desires.

 

There are many Challenge caches (ranging from easy to difficult) along mostly dirt roads in rural Idaho. That same area has a variety of Non-Challenge caches as well. Again, I don't think this normally is a major problem.

 

There are many Challenge caches of varying difficulty along dirt forestry roads in rural British Columbia.

 

Utah has hundreds of Challenge caches, mostly scattered about but also a couple trails (dirt road and desert roads), both with a range of easy-to-difficult challenges.

 

In my experience, owners generally use good sense when they place large groups of Challenge caches. I wouldn't be completely shocked if there were exceptions, though.

Edited by CanadianRockies
Link to comment

Here's the important difference between challenge vs non-challenge caches: the challenge caches can't be logged unless you qualify.

 

Tree climber? Find a nimble friend. Evil nano? Gatherer sharp-eyed patient help. On a mountain? Hire a professional guide or a helicopter. Hard puzzle? Brute force the checker, rule out proximity, puzzle solving groups, etc. Another finder could even take you right to the cache.

 

Probably close to 99% of non-challenge caches could be logged by 99% of cachers with the right help. Yet you could potentially find a trail of 100 challenge caches without being able to log a Find on most of them.

Link to comment

Can we hear more about this story? Does this kind of thing happen often?

"Often" is kind of a relative term, but here is one local example:

Wait, that's an example of a problem you think needs solved?? "Relative", indeed: that series is wildly popular. Let's just look at the 4 northern most:

 

We need more problems like this.

 

I've even found a couple further south myself. (As a "newbie" before I'd been caching a year, by the way.) If you're trying to convince me GS is trying to solve a serious problem with run away challenge caches, you just completely blew it. Is that really the best you can do?

Link to comment

I think the "needs to appeal to and be attainable by a reasonable number of cachers" is necessary, and fluid, with the standard shifting as the years go on. The sorts of challenges we have today were nigh impossible many years ago. Now they're run of the mill. 5-10 years down the line, the ridiculous challenges today will be more easily qualified. The longer one caches, the more challenges will be qualified. "Reasonable" has to be subjective and change as time progresses, and there does need to be a limit. As mentioned elsewhere, newcomers to the hobby shouldn't be intimidated by challenges that may take years to accomplish; that's not the feel Groundspeak wants to promote in geocaching, even if we feel that's really what gives a challenge its value in completing.

 

So I don't agree that the guideline should be removed. But I do feel that the standard of "reasonable" should definitely itself be reasonable.

 

ETA: That is to say, there should be a reasonable number of challenges that appeal to 'new' geocachers, and a reasonable number of challenges to appeal to 'veterans' - providing some semblance of an actual challenge to both ends of the spectrum.

 

I don't know the reason behind this guideline but think it's a good one. It at least will prevent those 'my gps is larger than your gps' challenges and those 'look what I did accidentally that I bet you can't do' challenges. One challenge that remained unfound for ages including finding three caches in 24 hours in 3 different time zones on three continents. It was a micro in a prime location. :blink:

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...